October/November 2005 Issue Number 76

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

Women Chief Officers Leadership Conference October 20-23, 2005, Bucks County, PA. Go to www.womenfireofficers.org for more information. 

Leadership Training Seminar April 7-9, 2006. Phoenix, AZ. Sponsored by Women in the Fire Service. Go to www.wfsi.org for more information.

Practicing Fire Prevention

October is fire prevention month, and all across the country, local emergency services agencies are installing smoke detectors and teaching children to stop, drop and roll. Everyone agrees that preventing actual fires is a good thing, but how effective are organizations at preventing virtual conflagrations, both within their own ranks, and in the community?

It doesn't take much effort to find examples of poor prevention is these areas. A city police officer sues a state police officer over an argument that occurred when one confronted the other about jaywalking after a football game. A fire chief orders some members of his department not to enter burning buildings because of an alleged threat from other firefighters on the department. Clearly both these situations illustrate conflicts that potentially could have been resolved at a lower level, but which escalated to crisis proportions.

What could have been done differently to change the development of these and other cases? Certainly a proactive approach would have helped, where effective communication is both valued and taught, and systems exist for resolution of conflict when it first occurs. Waiting until interpersonal conflict reaches crisis levels before responding is like waiting for the building to be fully involved in flame before you call for the fire department. No matter what kind of effort is made at that point, the ultimate outcome cannot be good.

Preventing fires, both actual and virtual, requires organizational and leadership commitment in the form of behavioral modeling, time investment, and money. Smoke detectors cost money, kids needs to learn how to stop, drop and roll, and the fire department has to commit resources to delivering these services to the community. Likewise, you cannot prevent the escalation of interpersonal conflict without committing time and money to the effort; training, policy development, follow up. And leadership example is critical; someone leading the effort of taking a proactive approach to conflict at an organizational level must also personally demonstrate those skills and attitudes.

Putting out fires is necessary, but preventing them makes more sense, costs less money in the long run, and incurs much less damage and risk for everyone. This is true whether the fire is destroying buildings or destroying relationships within your organization.

A report by the American Journal of Health Promotion has found that obese employees cost organizations an additional $460- $2500 annually from medical expenses and work absences. Obesity is defined medically as being 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight.

Source: Business and Legal Reports, September 12. 2005.

Couples on the Job and Sexual Harassment

Can a married couple working for the same employer both sue the organization for sexual harassment in a single case? Yes, according to a recent ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case concerned a married couple, Leslie and Frank Venezia, who both worked for Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. Leslie began work there in 1993 and eventually became Director of Childcare; Frank was hired in 2000 in the maintenance division. Soon after Frank began work, he started experiencing harassment from both supervisors and coworkers. Behaviors cited in the case included anonymous notes that suggested Frank was hired because of Leslie's sexual activity with other hospital employees, pornographic pictures of both men and women sent to him or posted on the bulletin board, some of which referred to his wife, explicit inquires about his sexual relationship with his wife, damage to his personal property, shunning, and death threats. Frank went off on a medical leave for stress in 2002 and claimed he was constructively discharged when the hospital refused to guarantee his reinstatement following an extension of that leave.

Leslie began experiencing problems in 2001 following a disagreement with another employee who happened to be a co-worker of Frank. Examples of behavior she experienced included malicious rumors about her sexual activity, damage to her personal property, and being sent sexually explicit pictures that referred to both her and her husband. Both Leslie and Frank reported the harassing treatment to their supervisors, but no corrective action was taken.

When both Leslie and Frank sued the hospital for sexual harassment, their case was initially dismissed by the lower court. That court stated that because both a man and a woman were suing the same employer on the same charge of harassment, such treatment could not be based on sex and therefore did not meet the requirements for such litigation under Title VII. The logic of this dismissal came from a 7th Circuit case, Holman v. Indiana, which invoked the concept of the "equal opportunity harasser" to dismiss the plaintiffs' case.

In the case of Frank and Leslie Venezia, the 7th Circuit modified its own previous stance and said that such cases are actionable under certain circumstances. The key difference cited by the court was the fact that in the Holman case, both parties claimed harassment by a single individual, whereas in the Venezia case, the parties claimed harassment by a number of different members of the organization. The 7th Circuit court stated that the previous case would only apply "if the idea of the equal opportunity harasser could be extended from the individual harasser to the overall entity."

This case is important in several ways. First, it recognizes that harassment can occur against both men and women simultaneously. It diminishes any thought that married couples or those in relationships are thus fair game for abuse in the workplace. More importantly, it clarifies the concept of the "equal opportunity harasser" as only applying to a single individual, and not various individuals behaving in similar ways. When such group behavior exists and the organizational culture is supporting a harassing environment, greater liability will apply.

Source: Frank Venezia and Leslie Venezia v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital Inc. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-1976.

© Linda F. Willing, 2005